Ukraine

[Serial_Apologist]

I think it is quite interesting how this conflict is now being reported and seen as a marker of why Western demography is working. For example, the use of Anerican long range missiles is being seen as a game changer and being justified as tit for tat with the employment of North Korean soldiers. This is not the case . If the 12000 figure is to be believed, this is about 6 times the daily casualty figure of the Russian forces . North Korean troops are untrained and don't speak Russian. I also have heard that they are serving as service corps. The US response is not proportionate

I also think criticism of the aiding of Ukraine from the Left and organisations like Stop The War is ignored and never reported. There is no counter argument.

The other thing that really troubles me is that there are British services on the ground in uk and this has never been put through Parliament. Everytime th3 British start getting involved in foreign conflicts, things become messy and we get it wrong. Supplying long range missiles will not solve the problem.

I was adamant that Russia were 100 % reaponsible for the invasion and that this was a consequence of NATO provocation if a Russian leader who was u hinged. This is now being bourne out. The situation is no longer clear cut and I feel that perhaps it is time to both cease military support fir Ukraine and also get out ofNATO now that Trump had been re-elected.

I cannot understand why no efforts have been made to reach out to Iran. Why has no one offered them support against Israel on the proviso that they cease supplying drones to Russia ?

Labour's foreign policy is no more balanced than the Conservatives. Corbyn not getting elected in 2016 is probably the worse thing to happen from a foreign policy perspective to this country since Suez.

I find myself at odds with the left's opposition to supporting Ukraine on grounds that uninvited invasion of one country by another violates a prime socialist principle of national sovereignty - or at least I thought it did. The argument that NATO has been advancing its spheres of operation eastwards is neither here nor there - NATO was set up as a bulwark against a Soviet Union that Neo-Cons in the Pentagon later admitted to Pilger was no threat to the West, just building its nuclear technology and armaments quota to maintain the games theory mutual destruction balance between the two sides. I believe this was leaked from internal Pentagon/White House documents. We argued for exiting NATO on grounds that if anything the west was the aggressor, penning in the so-called socialist world on all sides, and that money spent on weapons could be better deployed for social needs, with Britain declaring itself neutral. One does not like finding oneself effectively supporting a military alliance now solely for the protection of capitalist interests, but on the other hand we have rogue states whether they be Israel , Iran, Pakistan or India nuclear-defended, and all bets are off as to who might kick off in the unforseeable future. The left finds itself in the invidious position of being on the same side as Putin, Trump and nationalist far right climate change denying régimes hellbent on trading and economic retrenchment. I've strongly expressed my disagreements on one of the main left wing websites in the UK. I agree strongly with what you say about Corbyn, however. FPTP disguised the fact that Labour's share of the 2016 vote was actually greater than it had been in the preceding GE.

[Ian Thumwood]

The provision of missiles is pointless. They do not have a particularly long range and Trump will reverse this decision within 2 months. I cannot see what it will achieve in the long term


I agree with the condemnation of Putin but, like China, Russia is large enough and has the human resources to do what it wishes. At best, we can seek to maintain a status quo. The West is made up of countries which are not martial ones. I do not see how we can make countries that large comply to our will.

My main point was the the West is not acting democratically. The role of uk troops in Ukraine had not be voted through Parliament and was in neither party's manifesto. There is no coverage whatsoever of the likes of Stop The War who have offered other solutions.

[french frank]

We argued for exiting NATO on grounds that if anything the west was the aggressor, penning in the so-called socialist world on all sides, and that money spent on weapons could be better deployed for social needs, with Britain declaring itself neutral.

And accepting Russia's claim that NATO and the West are 'to blame' wilfully ignores the fact that back in the real world most of the non-Russian 'socialist world' has had to fight to get away from Russia's influence and join the Western allies, NATO and the 'capitalist/socialist' (take your pick) EU. United Russia is the imperialist power. There's more than a hint of Trumpian isolationist thinking to argue that the US/UK is better off going it alone and dumping Ukraine and Europe..

[Ian Thumwood]

I think UK rightly should be aligning itself with Europe and certainly not Trump

Russia is too large to be confronted. It is best for the Russians to work things out themselves. Putin will eventually be forced to step down from within.

[HighlandDougie]

This may - or may not - be easily accessible but Sir Lawrence's latest pensées:

https://samf.substack.com/p/can-trump-get-a-deal-on-ukraine?utm_campaign=email-post&r=w1xt&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

[french frank]

Russia is too large to be confronted. It is best for the Russians to work things out themselves. Putin will eventually be forced to step down from within.

So nothing to be done. The complexity of international relationships creates seemingly insoluble problems for any kind of consistency in democratic policy. Coincidentally, the prime minister of Abkhazia - the separatist movement which, with Russian backing, broke away from Georgia - has just resigned in the face of anti-Russian protests. And Georgia, historically seeking NATO and EU membership, faced its own protests over the current government's proposed Russian-style legislation. The small pro-Russian separatist movements are all backed by Moscow (Donbas, Transnistria). Then there was the separatist movement in Chechnya that was foolish enogh to try to wrest control from Russia. South Ossetia? Nothing to be done? Anywhere? All down to Western aggression?

[Serial_Apologist]

So nothing to be done. The complexity of international relationships creates seemingly insoluble problems for any kind of consistency in democratic policy. Coincidentally, the prime minister of Abkhazia - the separatist movement which, with Russian backing, broke away from Georgia - has just resigned in the face of anti-Russian protests. And Georgia, historically seeking NATO and EU membership, faced its own protests over the current government's proposed Russian-style legislation. The small pro-Russian separatist movements are all backed by Moscow (Donbas, Transnistria). Then there was the separatist movement in Chechnya that was foolish enogh to try to wrest control from Russia. South Ossetia? Nothing to be done? Anywhere? All down to Western aggression?

Quite. And, short of massive internal opposition, those seemingly coming up in Putin's eventual wake seem no better from the world's perspective vis-a-vis any Russian expansionist intentions. As with the case of whatever climate change inflicts, nuclear war without a Fifth Cavalry conquering the distant ridge to come to the rescue goes beyond practical or humanitarian considerations. Those states on Russia's periphery clamouring for EU membership are facing the increasing fragmentation of a unit initially set up to trade effectively with the US (and later Japan) but now disintegrating under nationalist pressures. We might be faced with Europe (including the UK) becoming the last available go-to for a sustainable survivable future for everyone: a scary prospect in terms of migration. But it leaves no alternative but the richest, namely the original members making up the EU, constituting ourselves into a defense bloc and pooling the resources necessary in support. One hopeful emerging from all this might be that along with the uprooted destitute we would then also attract the brightest minds in science and politics - men and women of the likes of those we saw on last night's Panorama, on the theme of whether or not science can save the world from climate change consequences.

[french frank]

This may - or may not - be easily accessible but Sir Lawrence's latest pensées:

The introductory comments only, it seems.

[Frances_iom]

The Americans have, apparently willingly, voted for their own George III, nominally an absolute monarch (though in reality more of a liberal thwarted by incompetent ministers and recurring illness) who has control of all 3 branches of government - however George III's illness removed any intellectual powers and required an extensive Regency under a worthless princeling - Trump's mental stability would from his appearances and utterances appear to be waning quickly - a rule by a vice-president of little experience might well be even worse.

Trump will I suspect give Putin most if not all of what he wants - Russia is already gearing up to regain their Baltic neighbours (eg a cutting of a fibre optic link prob by a similar (if not the same) Russian research vessel that was tracing the links in the Irish Sea in last week. This will certainly embolden Xi to take over Taiwan.

[HighlandDougie]

The introductory comments only, it seems.

It's possible that it can be shared via e-mail so, if anyone wants to PM me their e-mail address, I'll forward the link.

[Ian Thumwood]

So nothing to be done. The complexity of international relationships creates seemingly insoluble problems for any kind of consistency in democratic policy. Coincidentally, the prime minister of Abkhazia - the separatist movement which, with Russian backing, broke away from Georgia - has just resigned in the face of anti-Russian protests. And Georgia, historically seeking NATO and EU membership, faced its own protests over the current government's proposed Russian-style legislation. The small pro-Russian separatist movements are all backed by Moscow (Donbas, Transnistria). Then there was the separatist movement in Chechnya that was foolish enogh to try to wrest control from Russia. South Ossetia? Nothing to be done? Anywhere? All down to Western aggression?

Unfortunately there is nothing that can be done. It is a complete waste of time confronting either Russia or China. In the case of the latter, the rest of the world will have to suck it up. Forget Taiwan as that is q lost cause.

I think Russia will ultimately retake the Baltic states just as they will Ukraine and Belarus. There will only be a status quo once Poland no longer is under the thrall of EU and Nato. I cannot see Russia have ambitions beyond this but certainly believe the boundaries will be redrawn within next 5 years and there will be nothing we can do about it. Push comes to a shove , Nato will back down and not confront Russia. Totally pointless taking Russia on.as both Hitler and Napoleon found out to their costs.

[Historian]

Unfortunately there is nothing that can be done. It is a complete waste of time confronting either Russia ... [I have left out China as it's not relevant to my reply]

I think Russia will ultimately retake the Baltic states just as they will Ukraine and Belarus. There will only be a status quo once Poland no longer is under the thrall of EU and Nato. I cannot see Russia have ambitions beyond this but certainly believe the boundaries will be redrawn within next 5 years and there will be nothing we can do about it. Push comes to a shove , Nato will back down and not confront Russia. Totally pointless taking Russia on.as both Hitler and Napoleon found out to their costs.

Where to start.... ?

No-one is proposing to invade and take over Russia: this would not work as you point out. I would happily list numerous occasions when Russia has been defeated in the past, however let's focus on the current conflict.

Russia is, very slowly, making advances in some areas by the expedient of demolishing the Ukrainian defences piece by piece, as well as any houses, hospitals etc. that are in the way. This is at immense cost and becoming increasingly difficult as their artillery, tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles are destroyed. An army reduced to deploying 65 year old tanks is not giving off much of an aura of invincibility. Russia is running out of well-trained troops and has called in help from North Korea (as you mention). The infantry it has left are sent forward in numbers to try to overwhelm the Ukrainians once their defences have been ground down by long-range aerial bombardment.

Russia's Black Sea fleet has fled as far away as possible from the Crimea. It's air force doesn't get involved up in close air support because it can't afford further losses.Despite strenuous efforts, Russia has so far been unable to take back most of the land in Kursk oblast captured by Ukraine as a bargaining chip. It has to save up missiles in order to make a meaningful attack on Ukraine's infrastructure as distinct from random killing of women, children and old people. It may be that Ukraine will have to accept losing some territory to Russia (for the time being at any rate) but there is absolutely no military way that Russia is going to take Ukraine.

The idea that Russia could successfully take on a much more heavily-armed and well-prepared Poland is utter fantasy.

Russia doesn't have to retake Belarus as it's already dominated by Putin's poodle Lukashenko.

Poland is not under the thrall of the EU and NATO. Poland, like the other members of both organisations, democratically decided to join and remain in them.

[Ian Thumwood]

Historian

I think you have misread me. I feel Russia will back down once Belarus and the Baltic states have been recovered. My comment about Poland was that this country has been vociferously anti Russian and perhaps too antagonistic. I do not see Russia ceasing to be belligerent until former territories have been taken back . Of course Russia will not invade Poland but I would not bet against them a angling for a new government that favoured the EU and NATO less.

I will also make a controversial observation in that if Russia attacked Poland , i am not convinced that the United States under Trump would urge NATO to come to Poland's assistance. Any military action by Russia against Poland would only be addressed by European countries. I concur with some of the sentiment that Putin will not cease to be satisfied if he succeeds in Ukraine and that this should be a concern for Europe. However, I cannot see this extending beyond former territories and ensuring that countries on its borders have more sympathetic governments such as in Hungary. Ideally , Russia would love a Polish version of Orban. The current Polish government is too bullish to ensure peace in Europe when contending with someone as aggressive as Putin.

[Petrushka]

Historian

I think you have misread me. I feel Russia will back down once Belarus and the Baltic states have been recovered. My comment about Poland was that this country has been vociferously anti Russian and perhaps too antagonistic. I do not see Russia ceasing to be belligerent until former territories have been taken back . Of course Russia will not invade Poland but I would not bet against them a angling for a new government that favoured the EU and NATO less.

I will also make a controversial observation in that if Russia attacked Poland , i am not convinced that the United States under Trump would urge NATO to come to Poland's assistance. Any military action by Russia against Poland would only be addressed by European countries. I concur with some of the sentiment that Putin will not cease to be satisfied if he succeeds in Ukraine and that this should be a concern for Europe. However, I cannot see this extending beyond former territories and ensuring that countries on its borders have more sympathetic governments such as in Hungary. Ideally , Russia would love a Polish version of Orban. The current Polish government is too bullish to ensure peace in Europe when contending with someone as aggressive as Putin.

The Baltic states - Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia - are members of both the EU and NATO and are sovereign, independent countries. Are you seriously suggesting that everyone should just shrug their shoulders and let Putin get on with it in the hope he'd be satisfied?

Poland, also in NATO and the EU, are indeed 'vociferously anti-Russian' - and with just cause. The Baltic states and Poland have plenty of experience of Russian aggression and don't want to repeat it. That's why they wanted to join NATO and the EU.

It's worth remembering that the Russo-Ukranian war began not in 2022 but in 2014 with the invasion of Crimea. After ten years, therefore, Russia now holds little more than 20% of Ukrainian territory. With reports of Russian casualties at around 1,500 a day their army has been decimated to the extent that they are having to import cannon fodder from North Korea.

There is no chance of Putin invading anyone else while his military and economy are in such bad shape. Trump or no Trump, he will face catastrophic consequences if he was mad enough to try and whatever else Putin is, he's not stupid.

Trump will face the reality of the situation when he sees, as he must do, that America's vital interests are at stake in Europe and isolationism isn't going to be of much use to the US. For the security of both Europe and the United States it is vital that Ukraine wins this war and is seen to win it.

[Ian Thumwood]

I totally disagree with this. Putin's logic for the invasion of Ukraine and meddling in the politics of Russia's neighbours is precisely a reaction to NATO and the EU encroaching on their former sphere of influence. Russia is hemmed in and the loss of influence in the Baltic states has caused them serious issues. It is not as if they have become neutral. These countries are actively hostile to Russia and with good reason.

It is also worth mentioning that the addition of Ukraine to Russia only dates from the era of Kruschev and at a time when both countries were part of the USSR. This never gets mentioned

I think that the hawkish attitude in the West is blinkered. Most of these countries cannot afford a military force to counter Russia. Any conflict with Russia would result in catastrophic damage beyond what was experienced in WW2. Would you be happy to have your life destroyed by Russian bombs on a point of principle ? Is it worthwhile you losing your family for this.

As far as the state of Russia's military is concerned, Putin has the will and ability to recruit numbers well in excess of what the West could muster. However, as seen with the events in Salisbury, it is quite easy to cause substantial damage with very little effort.

The invasion of Ukraine rightly prompted masses of sympathy. I have agreed with the aid in the past but the situation has changed now Ukraine has invaded Kursk and the West has facilitated the use of ballistic weapons within Russia. The inability of Western military operations to go as planned in places like Kosovo , Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan should be deeply troubling for people in the uk but , as your post suggests , there are still people unable to appreciate that being morally right does not mean the outcome will be as wished. The Russians will ultimately remove Putin themselves. We do not need to be involved